The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the status of the parties and their entitlement to shares in the ancestral property based on the evidence presented and the applicability of res judicata and the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri V.K. Paliwal, Learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Deceased Shriram Chandrabhan Aghav married to Rakhamabai Shriram Aghav - Plaintiff No.1 and Subhadrabai Shriram Aghav - Defendant No.2. He was having issues out of these marriages. They are as follows : -

3. Rakhamabai Shriram Aghav - Plaintiff filed a Suit for partition bearing R.C.S. No.20 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Lonar, Buldhana. Rakhamabai claimed that her marriage with Shriram took place 40/50 years prior to filing of Suit (in the year 2002). Earlier this Suit was filed in Court at Mehekar later on it was transferred to Lonar Court. There were four agricultural lands and open land along with one house situated at village -Chincholi Sangle Taluka-Lonar, Dist.Buldhana. It is described in para. No. 1 of the plaint. They were the suit properties. Ushabai - Plaintiff No.2 is a daughter born to Rakhmabai out of the said wedlock. Shriram ill-treated her and drove her out of the house. Initially, she filed maintenance proceeding. She succeeded in that and then filed partition Suit claiming share for herself and her married daughter.

4. Deceased Shriram has not given evidence. He expired on 10th October, 2005. Subhadrabai - Defendant No.2 filed joint written statement. According to her, she is the first wife of Shriram and Rakhamabai - Plaintiff No.1 is the second wife. Defendant No.13 pleaded a will dated 26/4/2005 executed by her father Shriram in her favour and land bearing Gat No.7, Survey No.57/5-A, 1.19 R area is bequeathed to her. Plaintiffs have challenged the will. So also plaintiffs have challenged the partition effected by Shriram in between his two sons in the year 1975. Shriram has also executed a sale deed in respect of part of suit land. So also defendant no.4 has sold away part of suit land in favour of defendant no. 8 and 9 and plaintiffs have also challenged these transactions.

5. So the issue before the trial Court was 'whether Plaintiff No.1 was the 1st Wife or Defendant No.2 was the first wife of Shriram'. The learned trial Court answered the issue in favour of Plaintiff No.1. As such Defendant No.2 being second wife was held not entitled to any share, but her children being illegitimate children, were held entitled not an independent share in coparcenary property, but they were held entitled to share in the share of their father Shriram- Defendant No.1. The Suit properties were held as ancestral properties. The shares allotted by the trial Court were as follows :-

6. So total share allotted to the plaintiffs was :

7. There were 13 Defendants. Out of them, Defendant No.3, 4 and 13 are the children of Defendant Nos.2 and 3. Whereas Defendant Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9 are the children of Defendant No.4. Whereas Defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 12 are the purchasers of some of the Suit properties. All the Defendants except Defendant Nos.7, 10, 11 and 12 have preferred First Appeal. However, they could not succeed and the Appeal was dismissed and Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed. Now the same Appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal. This Appeal was admitted on 05/12/2017, on the following substantial questions of law :

''(i) Whether the findings recorded in the Suit for maintenance filed by the Plaintiffs being Special Civil Suit No.22 of 1983 would operate as resjudicata against the present Appellants who were not party to those proceedings.

(ii) What shall be the shares of the sons and daughters of Subhdrabai begotte